Obama had no trouble signing 5 executive orders
Posted By: in 3 days.......so the question is......... on 2009-01-23
In Reply to: We cant blame Bush? - Phyllis
if he is so opposed to bombing Pakistan, why did he give the order to do so? US drones bombing Pakistan. He is now in charge.....Bush can't call those shots.
Like I said, as long as Dems are in control, they suddenly have no problem with bombing ANYONE......just goes to show you what they will be doing to this country........just bend over and take it like a good little girl
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Obama's take on his own executive experience...
Obama: Running campaign counts as executive experience
Tuesday September 2, 2008
Talk about resume padding! He compares his experience running a campaign (which, btw should come as a surprise to his campaign manager) with her experience as mayor and totally ignores her experience as governor and Cooper lets him get away with it.
COOPER: And, Senator Obama, my final question -- your -- some of your Republican critics have said you don't have the experience to handle a situation like this. They in fact have said that Governor Palin has more executive experience, as mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.
What's your response?
OBAMA: Well, you know, my understanding is, is that Governor Palin's town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We have got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year.
You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month.
So, I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute, I think, has been made clear over the last couple of years. And, certainly, in terms of the legislation that I passed just dealing with this issue post-Katrina of how we handle emergency management, the fact that many of my recommendations were adopted and are being put in place as we speak, I think, indicates the degree to which we can provide the kinds of support and good service that the American people expect.
Maybe he should practice this response a little more before he plants it with another reporter.
BTW, Hot Air has the unedited transcript if you are interested in how he really sounded when he answered the question. He is quite liberal in his use of "uh." For someone with a reputation of being articulate, he sure uses a lot of them.
Update: Here's the McCain campaign's response:
"For Barack Obama to argue that he's experienced enough to be president because he's running for president is desperate circular logic and it's laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama's inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin's executive experience managing a budget of over 10 billion dollar dollars, and more than 24,000 employees." --Tucker Bounds, spokesman John McCain 2008
Yeah, Obama's executive experience
nm
I feel the same way about Obama. The trouble is...
we will all be holding the bag, just like we are for the bad mortgages...with all the other problems I have with him, the idea that he and the Democrats could have avoided this for us had they listened to McCain in 2005-2006 trumps them all. And it is amazing to me how all of you just excuse that...like it never even happened.
Obama is just trouble....plain and simple.
There are so many things that I don't agree with him on. You can't raise taxes for small businesses in this time of crisis. You can't have all of these government assisted programs and only tax the rich because that won't be enough to cover all the expenses. He will have to tax us all including the middle class which he professes to want to help even though "spreading the wealth" will keep us down in the middle class because we won't be able to afford to make it into the upper tax bracket. Basically his plans are aimed to help the lowlife scum who don't want to work. As for his healthcare......like Oldtimer said below.....you can't make insurance companies pay for pre-existing conditions like that. If no one wants to pay for health insurance until they have a major illness.....these insurance companies are supposed to pay for a pre-existing condition when this person is just now paying insurance premiums. The insurance companies won't have any money to pay out if that is how it will work because no one will want to pay for insurance until something major happens. It just won't work that way because it can't.
Obama is a socialists through and through. I'm tired of the media and his supporters ignoring his associations. I'm tired of people throwing up the race card. It is just absolutely ridiculous. Just because I'm a white woman not voting for Obama....that doesn't make me racist. Yet you never hear about the people voting for Obama just because he is black.....is that not also racist?
This whole election is just screwed up. I hope to God that this next debate has something in it worth watching and I hope McCain tears Obama a new butthole!
I had trouble believing Obama's lies
He kept going around in circles it made no sense. He kept trying to cover up one lie with another. But what would you expect from a lawyer.
I'm sure you couldn't even cite the execute orders he has
!!
THere's no need to give orders either. Lila, you have grown tiresome and
You are insulting at times (and then deny it) and you are quite a pest. Nuff said.
Who's REALLY signing up for the military these days.
Military's Recruiting Troubles Extend to Affluent War Supporters
By Terry M. Neal
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, August 22, 2005; 8:00 AM
There was an eye-opening article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette a few days ago that explored the increasing difficulty the military is having recruiting young people to enlist. As has been well reported in many newspapers, including The Washington Post, the Army and Marines are having a particularly tough time meeting recruitment objectives, in part because of Americans' concern about the war in Iraq.
When you dig deeper into the reason for this phenomenon, it turns out that parents of potential soldiers and sailors are becoming one of the biggest obstacles facing military recruiters. Even top military officials acknowledge this and unveiled a new series of ads this spring targeted at influencers such as parents, teachers and coaches.
But the Post-Gazette raises another issue. There has been much talk about the relationship between race and ethnicity and military recruitment. But what about social and economic class? Are wealthier Americans, who are more likely to be Republicans and therefore more likely to support the war, stepping up to the plate and urging their children and others from their communities to enlist?
Unfortunately, there has been no definitive study on this subject. But it appears that the affluent are not encouraging their children and peers to join the war effort on the battlefield.
The writer of the Post-Gazette article, Jack Kelly, explored this question in his story that ran on Aug. 11. Kelly wrote of a Marine recruiter, Staff Sgt. Jason Rivera, who went to an affluent suburb outside of Pittsburgh to follow up with a young man who had expressed interest in enlisting. He pulled up to a house with American flags displayed in the yard. The mother came to the door in an American flag T-shirt and openly declared her support for the troops.
But she made it clear that her support only went so far.
Military service isn't for our son, she told Rivera. It isn't for our kind of people.
The Post-Gazette piece focused on parental disapproval of military recruitment efforts, and dealt only tangentially with the larger question of class. What we do know is that recruiting is down across the board and that both the Army and Marines have fallen significantly behind their recruiting goals.
This is what the Army's hired advertising company, Leo Burnett, had to say about the ads targeting influencers that it began running in April: Titled 'Dinner Conversation,' 'Two Things,' 'Good Training' and 'Listening' (Spanish-language ad), the commercials portray moments ranging from a son telling his mother he's found someone to pay for college, to a father praising his son who has just returned from Basic Training for the positive ways in which he's changed. They capture the questions, hopes and concerns parents have about a career serving the United States of America and include families from many different backgrounds.
I asked Army spokeswoman Maj. Elizabeth Robbins for further explanation on the intent of the ads.
Clearly it was to talk to influencers, she said. She said studies have shown that today's young people yearn to serve their country in one way or another. The problem is that today the people who influence their decisions are less likely than they were in past generations to recommend [military service].
Why?
In part because the economy is strong, said Robbins. In part because they are concerned about the war. And in part because fewer of them have a direct relationship with the military or have ever served.
So would it be logical to conclude that, if the strong economy is one of the reasons it is more difficult to recruit, the most affluent parents should be the most difficult to reach? After all, their children have more options, including college, than less affluent parents? And if that's true, isn't it somewhat ironic that the military is paying millions of dollars ultimately to influence the behavior of the parents who are among the most likely to be supportive of the war in Iraq?
I disagree with your premise, Robbins said, arguing that the military is represented strongly across the board by people of all income levels and faces challenges in recruiting at all income levels.
Referring to the Post-Gazette anecdote, she said, One woman saying stupid things does not a trend make.
Actually, I did have a premise, but it wasn't unshakable. But because neither the Army nor the Defense Department keeps detailed information about the household incomes of the people who join, it was not easy to prove or disprove.
So let's approach the issue this way: In the 2004 election, household income was a pretty decent indicator of how one might vote. Voters from households making more than $50,000 a year favored Bush 56 percent to 43 percent. Voters making $50,000 or less favored Kerry 55 to 44 percent. Median household income as of 2003 was $43,318, according to the U.S. Census.
The wealthier you become, apparently, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The GOP advantage grows more pronounced for people from households making more than $100,000. People from households with incomes exceeding that amount voted for Bush over Kerry by 58 percent to 41 percent. Those from households making less than $100,000 favored Kerry over Bush 51 to 49 percent. And nearly two-thirds of voters from households making more than $200,000 favored Bush over Kerry.
Those making more than $100,000 made up only 18 percent of the electorate, which explains why Bush won by a narrow 2.5 percentage points in the general election.
This raises all sorts of complicated socioeconomic questions, such as whether the rich expect others to fight their wars for them. Or, asked another way, are they more likely to support the war in Iraq because their families are less likely to carry part of the burden?
Certainly, there are no absolutes here. Many of the wealthy are Democrats, some of whom support the war. Some of whom oppose it. Many of the poor and working class are Republicans, and support the GOP on Iraq.
By looking at long-term trends, it seems logical that some of those most likely to support Bush and his Iraq policy are also those least likely to encourage their children to go into the military at wartime. And it raises questions, such as, if you are among those most likely to support the war, shouldn't you be among those most likely to encourage your child to serve in the military? Shouldn't your socioeconomic group be the most receptive to the recruiters' call? And would there be a recruitment problem at all if the affluent put their money where their mouth is?
Several social scientists have studied the question of economics and class in military enlistment. Many of these studies don't look at the officer ranks, which might tend to counter some of the class argument. But officers, of course, make up a relatively small portion of the military.
Among the more recent studies was one done last year by Robert Cushing, a retired professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. He tracked those who died in Iraq by geography and found that whites from small, mostly poor, rural areas made up a disproportionately large percentage of the casualties in Iraq.
I talked to two other academicians who have studied the issue. Their conclusions, though reached prior to the war in Iraq, were helpful because of their understanding of the historical implications of the class question.
David R. Segal, director of the Center for Research on Military Organizations at the University of Maryland, said contrary to conventional wisdom both the poorest and the wealthiest people are underrepresented at the bottom of the military ranks, for completely different reasons. This trend held for both from the conscription years of Vietnam through at least the late 1990s.
Poorer people, he said, are likely to be kept out of the military by a range of factors, including higher likelihood of having a criminal record or academic deficiencies or health problems.
Back during Vietnam, the top [economic class] had access for means of staying out of the military, said Segal. The National Guard was known to be a well-to-do white man's club back then. People knew if you if joined the guard you weren't going to go to Vietnam. That included people like Dan Quayle and our current commander in chief. If you were rich, you might have found it easier to get a doctor to certify you as having a condition that precluded you from service. You could get a medical deferment with braces on your teeth, so you would go get braces -- something that was very expensive back then. The wealthy had more access to educational and occupational deferments.
Today's affluent merely see themselves as having more options and are not as enticed by financial incentives, such as money for college, Segal said.
The Army was able to provide socioeconomic data only for the 2002 fiscal year. Its numbers confirm Segal's findings that service members in the highest and lowest income brackets are underrepresented, but because those numbers chronicle enlistments in the year immediately following the 2001 terrorist attacks, it's difficult to ascertain whether this was a normal recruiting year.
Segal and Jerald G. Bachman, a research professor at the University of Michigan's Institute for Social Research, have studied the correlation between a parental education levels and likelihood for their offspring to enlist.
Examining data from early to mid-1990s, they created five categories, with one being the lowest level. Perhaps not surprisingly, they found the children of the most-educated parents -- those with post-graduate degrees -- were the least likely to join the military. The children of parents with high school diplomas were three times more likely to enlist.
One of the interesting phenomenon of today's politics is that, in general, Republicans tend to be more educated on average than Democrats, with a larger percentage either holding a bachelor's degree or having attended some college. But Democrats represent a larger portion of the super-educated -- that is, those holding graduate degrees. So Democrats are made up of the least and the most educated, with Republicans congregated largely near, but not at, the top.
So how did those near the top of the educational tree do in Segal's and Bachman's study? They were half as likely as those in group two to enlist. And because there are far more people who have been to college or have bachelor's degrees than there are people who have post-graduate degrees, the former group has far more political influence, just in sheer numbers.
While there have been changes in racial and ethnic enlistment trends, with the number of black recruits dropping precipitously since the Iraq war, Segal and Bachman said they've seen nothing to indicate significant changes in the class -- of which education levels is a prime indicator -- trends in the military.
Journalists can get themselves in trouble by drawing simplistic conclusions based on less-than-exhaustive research, and we won't do so here. But we can at least raise the question of whether the rich are more likely to support the war because their loved ones are less likely to die in it.
Comments can be sent to Terry Neal at commentsforneal@washingtonpost.com.
© 2005 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
He saw it coming while Clinton was signing
xx
New bill to clear way for Congree to sue Bush for signing statements.sm
http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5191362&nav=2KPp
Take a 2nd look. She has more executive
nm
She's the only one of the four with executive experience
Obama has little experience even as a legislator, but you believe this smart woman with executive leadership experience is less qualified to be president should it come to that? No, I don't think so.
She already has more executive experience than your guy...
and he is 1st chair. All those negatives you posted are positives for a lot of people. THe state ethics committee investigation is not over yet, and frankly, a state trooper who tasers an 11-year-old (oh he asked me to) SHOULD be fired in my humble opinion. And a state trooper who threatens the life of his estranged wife and her parents should not be wearing the uniform of a state trooper. But that is just me, I guess.
I am sure the people of Alaska are thrilled to hear that the Democrat supporters of Obama are marginalizing them into nothing because they have smaller population than Austin, Texas.
All this kind of post does is show how petty, vindictive and mean people can get when their backs are up against the wall and they think they might lose.
The DNC should have thought about all this before they took on the Clintons. Howard Dean messed up big time.
Executive experience is a big zero
You showed up late today so rather than repeating everything that has already been said on this imponent executive experience media mantra thing, please catch up on your reading. Also, the issue of her not running has been exercised in light of the very real possibility that she would be positioned to take over sooner rather than later. Besides, the Bimbos Unite! cult sure seems to think she is running for president. You will notice just how absent McCain has been from the spotlight since yesterday morning. The notion that our party is somehow fractured or not strongly unified is more of your delusional thinking. McCain took care of that when he decided to insult most of thinking women in this country by selecting a token female he met once to save his sinking ship. Strategy is lame, transparent and has actually created an angry backlash from Hillary supporters and women in general that will make Hurricane Gustav look like a a flushing toilet. You got no idea what you are talking about when you try to analyze the democratic party but please do us all a favor and continue to feed your delusions. theonly thing that's going to come back and bite bigtime is what's-her-name calling Hillary a whiner and McCain calling US economic refugees whiners. We do agree on one thing here. Sweeeeet!
You must have EXECUTIVE experience
nm
Executive travel
Executives who travel for business on private jets may actually be doing something line buy or sell a product, bring in revenue, broker a deal that will create jobs.
Politicians traveling that way are mostly being seen. Example: Was it truly necessary for O to fly to the Southwest just to sign a bill and stand in front of some solar panels? He doesn't have pens in the oval office? Does Pelosi really rate a government plane to get her back and forth to California? Not sure if she actually got the privilege, but know she requested it because she is sooooo important to the nation, being assistant president and all, that she has to travel efficiently.
Before you jump all over me with 'Bush did....' yes, I know, they ALL get face time this way. That was then, this is now. If we're supposed to be going 'green' how about cutting out politicians' needless self-promoting travel on our dime?
McCain has no EXECUTIVE experience
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
She does have more executive experience than McCain has...
McCain has no executive experience. None of them but Palin do. McCain does have more experience in the Senate and with foreign affairs, the military, et al, than Obama has. Much more. Those are the two running against each other. Joe Biden also has more experience than Obama has. Obama has the least experience of the 4. Obama has been a state senator and has spent most of his US senate career running for President. He is the least experienced of the 4, and he will be in the chair day 1. I don't feel real good about that possibility, especially in the war on terror. I really don't think he gets it. Talking to O'reilly about radical islam he kept saying something about factions, and you have to figure out what faction you are dealing with...that is talking like a senator. Have a committee and discuss it for 6 months. We can't afford that, in my opinion. I agree with Biden, and I don't mean to make fun, I'm serious...he is not ready for the job, IMO. That is one reason I am not voting for Obama.
Very funny. NOT! Executive experience!
nm
She has more executive experience than the #1 candidate on the other ticket...
she is, in fact, the only one of the 4 who has executive experience. SHE is not running for President. Obama IS. You decide where you would rather have limited experience, the #1 seat or the #2 seat. But of course i know the answer. ITs ok if he doesn't have any executive experience...after all, he has biden to fall back on, right?
As far as John McCain...he has more years of experience as a senator than Obama, he has years more experience in foreign policy than Obama, he does not bow to the Republican Party, Obama does bow to the Democratic party, McCain has bucked the Republican Party, Obama has never and I would guess will never buck the Democratic party, it is clear his first allegiance is there. Both McCain and Palin have demonstrated that their first allegiance is to the American people. She has an 80% favorability rating in Alaska...I am relatively sure 90% of Alaska is not Republican. Obama has never had an 80% rating...well except from NARAL, who gave him 100%. For me, McCain is more experienced and I want someone who is interested in what is best for me, not what is best for his political career and his all-important party.
Excuse me....the Presidency is an executive position...
Palin is the only one of the four who has executive appearance. She is as ready to lead right now as Obama is. Obama has zero international experience other than one trip to talk to the Germans in a political speech.
And I would think the fact that your #1 has less experience than McCain's #2 you would stay away from the experience thing...?
He picked her because she shares his ideals..wants change in washington. Obama wants that too. McCain picked a REAL Washington outsider. Obama didn't. Soooo..they are saying some of the same things Obama is saying, but when Obama says it is good, when they say it, it is bad?
Hello President McCain, and VP Palin!
Executive experience = running a government...
McCain hasn't, Obama hasn't, Biden hasn't. She HAS. Bill Clinton had only been a governor before he was elected President. Double standard alive and well on the left?? Of course it is.
But the fact remains...she has more executive experience than your #1 guy.
That is indisputable. In fact, more than her running mate and your #2. To say she is inexperienced only shines the same light on Barack Obama. That is not a slam, it is a fact.
JOHN MCCAIN HAS HAD NO EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
(Ret) General Wesley Clark
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/29/clark.mccain/index.html
Bush creates executive pay loophole.
Right up until the end, Bush is working hard for his "base." I can't wait to see this man leave -- if he leaves. 
Bush Administration created executive pay loophole
John Byrne
Published: Monday December 15, 2008 |
The Bush Administration inserted an eleventh-hour provision into the $750 billion bailout bill to protect executive bonuses, a single sentence that will torpedo efforts to reduce bonuses even as companies slash tens of thousands of jobs and use taxpayer money to gobble up other companies at fire-sale prices.
Pressured by constituents who worried that companies would take government aid and continue to pay their executives eye-popping bonuses, Congress inserted a provision that would penalize companies who took taxpayer money and shelled out outsized bonuses.
But at the last minute, Bush officials insisted on a one-sentence provision that stopped the measure in its tracks, according to congressional aides who spoke to the Washington Post.
The change stipulated that the sanction would only apply to firms that sold mortgage backed securities to the government at auction, which the Bush Treasury Department said would be the method they'd use to infuse troubled companies with bailout cash.
"Now, however, the small change looks more like a giant loophole, according to lawmakers and legal experts" who spoke to Post reporter Amit Paley. "In a reversal, the Bush administration has not used auctions for any of the $335 billion committed so far from the rescue package, nor does it plan to use them in the future. Lawmakers and legal experts say the change has effectively repealed the only enforcement mechanism in the law dealing with lavish pay for top executives."
"The flimsy executive-compensation restrictions in the original bill are now all but gone," Sen. Charles Grassley, a Republican from Iowa and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, told Paley.
According to Paley, "The final legislation contained unprecedented restrictions on executive compensation for firms accepting money from the bailout fund. The rules limited incentives that encourage top executives to take excessive risks, provided for the recovery of bonuses based on earnings that never materialize and prohibited 'golden parachute' severance pay. But several analysts said that perhaps the most effective provision was the ban on companies deducting more than $500,000 a year from their taxable income for compensation paid to their top five executives."
This amendment to the Internal Revenue Code was the only part of the bailout measure that had an explicit enforcement mechanism.
Bush officials initially opposed executive compensation rules. Banks, in particular, had been taking heat for "golden parachute" cases, where top executives received lavish pay upon their departure even if they'd done a poor job leading their company.
It remains unclear whether the Administration ever intended to limit executive pay -- if perhaps they knew in advance that Treasury didn't intend to buy mortgage assets at auction all along -- as they'd told Congress.
Words in the form of an executive order
If you are content to subscribe in all this voodoo spell casting and foreboding pronouncements to nowhere, be my guest. I prefer to stay grounded in the reality of the moment and give time for the plan to unfold.
Executive power survey by presidential candidates.
In case you haven't seen this article, I am posting the link:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/?page=2
This is very enlightening for those who want to know their candidates thoughts about executive power.
She has 12 months in an executive position, actually running a government...
Obama does not. She is going to be 2nd chair, not 1st. If either of them is going to be training on the job, better it be 2nd chair. She also served as mayor, which is also executive work. She has more experience to be President now (and that is not the position she is running for) than he does. Just fact, based entirely on experience. And the only reason I posted that at all is that is the first criticism of her that surfaced here. Personally, with Obama's limited experience going into the first chair, not the second chair...I would think his campaign and his followers would want the conversation to avoid that...that make an issue of it. Just an observation.
Executive experience media mantra no answer.
nm
Fact remains, she has made executive decisions for a year and a half...
as governor, and before that as a mayor. He has made none. Zero, zilch, nada. The only time she will "legislate" is if she has to vote to break a tie Not hardly the same thing as running a state...or a country.
And we'd big in trouble if he did nothing.
That's where we are as a nation, between a rock and hard place. Suck it up!
Why do you think we'd be in big trouble
if he did nothing?
On the mortgage debacle, I say let the one's who took bit off more than they could chew, fail. They put themselves in this position.
Those that have been paying their mortgages all along and are now trying to keep their homes should be helped since the prices fell so far so fast.
Bigger is not alwasy better and some people need to learn that the hard way. Home prices went too high to fast. The bubble was bound to burst. Those that bought into those inflated prices that they couldn't afford should not have done it. Look at the couple in FL. They waited and saved to buy their dream home. They wound up buying a home that was foreclosed on for only $80K. The house had sold to someone for $235,000.
Why do people need bathrooms as large as a bedroom anyway? Whose idea was that? How long do you spend in a bathroom every day anyway? A tub as big as a swimming pool? a fire place? Terrazine(sp) tile? Subway tile? Granite counters? The cost is outrageous. We went to buy a separate shower for our extra bathroom 5 years ago. It cost $150. We went back a year later and it was up to $450. Needless to say, we still don't have a shower for our extra bathroom.
My list of people who started this housing crap are the developers, the companies who make the products that go into the homes, the real estate agents who put the price tag on the home after the developer gave their price, and the mortgage lenders/banks who pushed the bad loans.
Now I do believe she is in trouble.
She has now accused the CIA of lying to her. No one else, just her. Seriously?
Here's what I think will happen:
1. The investigation will continue and she will be proven a liar - the CIA will help out with this one, I'm sure, with documentation confirming that she knew early on everything that happened.
OR
2. The democrats will ask her to step aside, seeing her for the liability that she is, in order to put the whole nasty mess behind them and do what Obama has suggested and look forward.
Either way, if I had money, I'd bet that her political career is pretty much over. I must say, too, that it couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
I know his campaign is in big trouble.
Seems to me he thought he found something and before confirming it, he started appearing on talk shows. At the most, he knowingly lied and wanted to tell his base what they wanted to hear.
At the least, he's reckless and sloppy in his approach to things.
I suppose the true test of his character will be if he comes clean and admits he was wrong.
Other than that, I find it increasingly difficult on a daily basis to understand why some of these politicians do what they do, both Republican and Democrat alike.
This country is in such trouble.
I will not vote for someone who wants to create more government assisted programs. We are in deep crap now because of government spending. That will only make our economy worse. All of our money will be put into government programs, the spending will go up instead of down, and all the money we dish out in taxes to pay for all of this crap will most definitely not go towards our deficit. It will only get bigger than it is now and it is HUGE right now. There is no way that Obama can only go after rich people and tax them more. It still wouldn't be enough to pay for all these "plans" he has. God help us!
NOBAMA!!!
i had trouble staying with what JM was saying -
it was rambling & almost incoherent.
Media causes trouble
I think half the time it is the broadcasting of such statements that prompt people to react in such a way. It's almost like they feel it is expected, so they then act out.
Plus the whole group mentality is freaky. Look at what people do sometimes after big sports events (like college games) ... even the winners. Like a pack of dogs!
I think they have been in trouble for some time (sm)
but I think the credit freeze just topped it off. I think there should be a loan (not a bailout), but with oversight and possibly even a controlling interest for the government. Of course, there is no guarantee that they will change or that the government will do any better, but I don't think them filing bankrupcy is the answer. Too many jobs are at stake. One interesting thing though is that everyone was in a hurry to bail out the financial institutions to the tune of 700B, and yet the big 3 are under an emormous amount of scrutiny. Michael Moore said the other night that there seems to be a difference between how you're treated depending on whether you take a shower before you go to work or if you shower after you get home from work. So true.
Sigh. Trouble is, if they get what they ask for....
we all get it. Like I said...at least I can take comfort in the fact that I will have had nothing to do with the demise of freedom in this country as we know it. This whole thing with Joe really brought that home in a BIG way. Civil rights down the tubes.
That is their fault. They have been in trouble for
nm
We are in bigger trouble than we know
It may just be way too late for Obama to get us out of the horrible mess we are in. We are fiddling while Rome burns - I sound like Chicken Little but indeed the sky IS falling - Frightening!
...."If we can use the Baltic Dry Index (BDI) as a guide for the next 12 months of product delivery and food availability in the stores we shop in then the BDI says shelves will be virtually empty of almost every product we use each and every day. Is the BDI is wrong it will be an historic first. The BDI is used by bankers, financial experts, brokers, traders and everyone in high end finance to assess the global financial condition and the availability of products worldwide. The BDI has dropped 94% in a short few weeks which means raw materials, grains, ores, steel, iron, cement and all imported products for food manufacturing and product manufacturing even though we actually do very little of that here in the US."
No....Clinton got in trouble
for lying about his blowjob. It is called lying under oath and it is punishable by law.
Should have saved yourself the trouble.
Your message was so juvenile and old hat, I don't know why you even posted.
Thank you for once again proving how ignorant your leftist lunatics really are.
More trouble in Iran
Iran's increasingly isolated opposition leader effectively ended his role in street protests, saying he'll seek permits for future rallies. A leading cleric demanded in a nationally broadcast sermon Friday that leaders of the unrest be punished harshly and that some are "worthy of execution."
Bettery try that again or I'll get in trouble with
http://bobgeiger.blogspot.com/2006/09/saturday-cartoons.html
Conservative starting trouble
It is obvious this is a conservative trying to start trouble on the liberal board. Who cares what you think about Senator Clinton? Cast your vote and lets see how the country thinks..A level headed calm thinking democrat or a rash testosterone so out of touch with reality dangerous republican. Oprah had a show on universal health insurance a few weeks ago and a professor was on and stated that when the conservatives want to scare the people or distract from programs to benefit the people, they say it is socialism. Well, what I want to know is, what do you call the health insurance program the Congress has? That most definitely is government health insurance, so I guess socialism?. Well, if it is good enough for the Congress, it is good enough for the people. What do you call the govt programs that build bridges, roads, dams, run schools, etc., etc., etc..? Socialism? The govt must help the people of this country. We pay our taxes and we have a right to govt programs to better the lives of the people of America. I am so sick of conservatives and thankfully most of America is too.
You seem to be having a little trouble staying on task.
Let's try this again. The subjct is guilt by association. The post you are answering listed Mc'Cain's associates as follows:
Just off the top of my head:
1. US Council for World Freedo. Can you say Iran contra? How about dong business with terrorists (the arms seller AND the arms customer)?
2. Phil Gramm, (co-chair of the McCain campaign), champion of Enron tax loopholes and author of Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that effectively neutralized any existing regulation of financial services industry. You remember good ole Phil. He's the one talking on McCain's behalf when he said we were having a "mental recession" and we have a nation of a bunch of whiners.
3. Gordon Liddy. That's the guy who got a 20-year sentence for his conviction of conspiracy, burglary and illegal wiretapping in the Watergate fiasco. m
4. Let's don't forget the Keating 5.
5. Richard Quinn, publisher of Southern Heritage ragazine for neo-confederates…unapologetic bigotry and proud of it!
6. Rick Davis, McCain CEO, lobbyist, paid $15,000 each month for "consulting" from end of 2005 until September 2008.
Let me spell out the issue at hand. If we are to infer that Obama embodies the phuilisophies of each and every single person or organization that he has ever encountered dring the corse of his lifetime, then we can infer the same about McCain. Are you with me so far? an appropriate, direct and credible response would not include the word democrat in it. It would deal with the issue at hand and with the list of pub snakes McCain pals around with.
McCain was having trouble speaking
McCain has had it. He lost it big time the minute he picked Palin. Oh sure the rallies got louder and the base was excited but people out there with common sense know what a mistake she is. She has a future in infomercials.
Gourdainter. I am having trouble linking to
Though this is the one rare subject on which you and I disagree (for reasons I totally get), still I am always interested in your insight. I am wondering if you wouldn't mind posting it again.
geez. I am NOT trying to start trouble...
I am seriously, honestly asking what this means. I didnt hear any audio and I dont live in Harlem and I am just curious what this means, if I am to take this how I THINK it sounds. I do realize that I could be taking it wrong and so I am trying to reserve judgment until I know what it means.
You posted this before. Trying to stir up trouble again? (nm)
x
|
